MORE ON THE DELEGATE RE-SEATING.

Josh Marshall makes some further points on the Clinton campaign's effort to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations:

It was very debatable decision whether the DNC should have punished Florida and Michigan with the loss of their delegates slates because they broke the rules the party had set down for scheduling their primaries. By 'debatable' I don't mean it was right or wrong, only that it was a pretty draconian move and I know there was a lot of discussion about whether or not it was the right thing to do.But that was the decision -- one that each of the candidates at least implicitly agreed to. Indeed, each agreed not to campaign in either of these states, again implicitly agreeing to the decision not to seat the delegates.[...]Each of the major candidates signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in any primary or caucus prior to Feb. 5th except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The other major candidates adopted what seems like the only reasonable interpretation of the pledge (see text here) and pulled their names from the ballot.But then Hillary didn't, thus in essence guaranteeing her win in Michigan.The Clinton campaign said taking her name off the ballot wasn't required by the pledge. But what can "participate" mean over and above "campaigning" other than formally being a candidate in the race?

As Josh says, there was a period for debate on all this. And the Clinton campaign could have stood and debated it. If they had, if they had said we don't believe this a wise move and we will not abide by it, then the other campaigns would have also competed in those states, and the DNC would, in all likelihood, have backed down. But the Clinton campaign didn't object to the DNC's decision. They said they would abide by it and refrain from campaigning. Because, at that point, Iowa and New Hampshire were the top priorities, and they didn't want Michigan and Florida pushing their primaries forward. They wanted order of the type that would preserve their first-in-the-nation status. And the candidates, rightly or wrongly, supported them in that. Moreover, I don't understand why the Clinton campaign is courting this sort of disaster. In all likelihood, they'll win Florida. Odds are they'll also win on Super Tuesday. They don't, in any obvious way, need to do this, and they certainly don't need to do it this far out.